Mediaboss Marketing

The Federal Communications Commission will vote to restore net neutrality rules, a move that would reverse a controversial FCC ruling from 2017.

Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced the vote on Wednesday. It has a very good chance of passing, given that of the five commissioners of the FCC board, three are Democrats. The initial move to end net neutrality during the Trump era was met with fierce backlash online.

The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential, Rosenworcel said. After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair.

A return to the FCCs overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet, she added.

Net neutrality is the requirement that internet service providers do not discriminate based on the source or destination of data. It classifies providers as common carriers under Title 2 of the Communications Act, meaning they can be regulated more heavily as if they were telecommunications providers.

The push to restore net neutrality began last year when the commission voted to consider a proposed rule to reverse the 2017 vote ending it, which was spearheaded by then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. He was pilloried online at the time, with critics incorrectly predicting it would result in dire consequences for internet users.

Critics had contended that certain websites or platforms would end up getting throttled or charged extra, but those fears never materialized.

The April vote will undoubtedly receive pushback from the Republican commissioners at the FCC.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In a dissent last October, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said that the proposal to return the Obama-era net neutrality rules was bad regulation.

It should be clear by now the FCCs efforts to provide utility-style regulation of the internet is not good policy, Carr said. Its proponents keep on layering on new shades of lipstick.

Link:
FCC to vote on reinstating Obama-era net neutrality rules - Washington Examiner

First, there was the era of true crime, then the era of true crime podcasts. Now, we're in the era of shows about true crime podcasters.

Bodkin, an upcoming Netflix series, will follow in the footsteps of Only Murders in the Building by riffing on the world of people making binge-able content out of the grisly and gory. The comedy-thriller will revolve around a group of podcasters hitting the Irish coast in search of a decades-old scoop.

Here's everything we know about Bodkin.

Bodkin revolves around a group of podcasters who set their sights on a remote town in Ireland (the titular Bodkin) which, years earlier, fell victim to a spate of unsolved disappearances. Thinking they're just digging up the facts of a cut-and-dry cold case, the trio end up embroiled in something much darker and weirder than they were expecting. Against the backdrop of an idyllic seaside town with all of its rural quirks, they start to unravel everything about the case.

Executive producer of the series, Tonia Davis, says the series is a wickedly wry thriller which questions truth, narrative, and the very purpose of each. Interrogating the morals of the people who profit off true crime is not all that new. Landmark podcasts like S Town and Serial or shows like Making a Murderer helicoptered hoards of rubber-neckers into small towns, making armchair detectives out of anyone with a headphone jack. While Only Murders in the Building puts a more farcical spin on the ecosystem of true crime podcasters, it seems like Bodkin will straddle the line of drama and comedy more closely. And it seems like the West Cork podcast, which focused on an unsolved murder in Schull in Ireland, was an inspiration here (as it was for a recent episode of Black Mirror).

The cast of Bodkin is a transatlantic affair. Up top, you've got Will Forte, probably best known for his tenure on SNL and the post-apocalyptic comedy The Last Man on Earth (2015). He'll be playing Gilbert, one of those Americans who's convinced they're actually Irish. He's the presenter of a true crime podcast looking for the scoop on Bodkin's three missing strangers.

Then, there's Siobhn Cullen, the Irish actress known for the likes of Paula (2017) and The Limehouse Golem (2016). She stars as Dove, an investigative journalist hired by Gilbert to do the brunt work of digging into Bodkin's secrets. Elsewhere on the team, we have Robyn Cara playing Emmy, the podcast's eager researcher and Chris Walley playing Sen OShea, a Bodkin local who gets wrapped up in the group's investigation.

Behind the camera is a whole other story, though, as the team behind the series includes none other than Michelle and Barack Obama. The pair's Higher Ground company produced the series, which Nash Edgerton will direct.

Every true crime podcast needs a good tease, so it stands to reason that every show about a true crime podcast needs one too. Netflix has released the first trailer for Bodkin, which provides just the right amount of mystery and intrigue to have you hypothetically hitting subscribe on Gilbert's show.

See more here:
Netflix's Obama-backed comedy series Bodkin will parody the West Cork podcast - British GQ

U.S. intelligence skews its findings to find favor with both Republican and Democratic policymakers, including former presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama, a sweeping new study by the Pentagon-backed RAND Corporation finds. The study draws on interviews, some anonymous, with nearly a dozen current and former U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers.

Despite the popular deep state characterization of the intelligence community as a rogue army running roughshod over elected leaders, the study concludes the exact opposite. It portrays an intelligence community that naturally tilts its reports and forecasts to curry favor with presidents and their high-level policymakers in Washington, regardless of party or issue.

Policymakers most frequently introduce bias in intelligence assessments from a desire to minimize the appearance of dissent, while the IC intelligence community tends to introduce bias through self-censorship, the report says.

The study, Has Trust in the U.S. Intelligence Community Eroded? Examining the Relationship Between Policymakers and Intelligence Providers, was sponsored by the Pentagon.

From 9/11 to January 6, theres hardly a shortage of intelligence failures to properly assess the big picture or anticipate crises, leading to a decline in trust by policymakers, some of whom have decried the intelligence community as a monolithic deep state outside of their control.But the study suggests that these policymakers often have themselves to blame for pressuring the intelligence community to come to certain conclusions in line with their political interests in many cases successfully.

Through his time in office, President Trump and other administration officials consistently sought to influence and, in some cases, bias intelligence, the study finds. Interviewees cited almost a dozen such examples, some unsurprising (Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections, the Muslim travel ban, and the characterization of antifa) but others less obvious (mass shootings and the SolarWinds hack).

Far from the Hollywood picture of intelligence operatives as ruthless Jason Bourne types, interviewees complained about the pressure analysts and management faced from White House policymakers, with one likening it to bullying.

The culture of fear was real, one former intelligence official told RAND. The IC gets tired of being bullied, then they withdraw.

Individuals looked to avoid conflict and please political masters.

Individuals looked to avoid conflict and please political masters, the study says of the intelligence community analysts and officials, adding that the CIA and other agencies have an incentive to elicit positive feedback from policymakers in order to maintain [their] relevance.

Across multiple administrations, this dynamic of fear appears to have infected the highest echelons of the intelligence community. Former CIA Director Gina Haspel declined to push back on Trumps equivocations regarding the intelligence communitys conclusion that Saudi Arabias de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, had ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the study notes. (Haspel had reportedly been ordered by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to attend a congressional briefing where she could have challenged Trumps statements. She didnt attend.)

The report identifies Russian meddling in elections as among the most prominent scenarios in which the Trump administration pushed to influence the outcome of intelligence analysis.

With election interference, there were attempts to directly impact/change what the intelligence said, a former official told RAND. The IC was going to say that Russia did something, but policymakers would insist on adding more language, like something else about Iran.

Another former official described election security as the third rail of intelligence topics, describing congressionally mandated intelligence reports on foreign interference as an awkward process.

Ironically, despite Trumps repeated insinuations of a deep state bent on undermining him, the very intelligence agencies ended upwatering down assessments in order to avoid confrontations. As the study observes, IC analysts looked to avoid conflict with policymakers and avoid charges of being part of the deep state.

The intelligence communitys deference to its political masters was by no means confined to the Trump administration. One former official toldRAND that the process always involves some degree of give and take between analysts and policymakers. Indeed, the report provides a number of examples of intelligence bias during the Obama administration.

John A. Gentry, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst during the Obama administration, is quoted as saying that superiors told analysts to avoid specifically identified terms that might trigger criticism of administration policy, the study notes. Gentry also said that during the Obama years, intelligence analysis suffered from politicization by omission: leaving out issues from regular updates or assessments because the results might displease superiors.

In 2015, the year before Trump was elected, a survey of the members of the U.S. Central Command the Pentagons combatant command for the Middle East found that over 65 percent of respondents believed that their analysis was suppressed or distorted in the face of evidence due to editorial disagreement, politicization, or a mismatching with existing analytic lines, the study also notes.

Another example was alleged by a former official at the highest levels of the Obama administration. Obamas former CIA Director Michael Hayden, the report notes, has written that the community turned a blind eye to Russian information operations due to the administrations efforts to broker new diplomatic relations with Moscow. Not until 2015 did the U.S. come to grips with Russian efforts, by then just a year out from the 2016 elections famously marred by Russian meddling.

Rather than in the direction of Langley, the Pentagon, or any intelligence agency,RAND concludes that the IC largely tilts toward the White House and its army of political appointees.

Clearly the intelligence community tilts its findings; but rather than in the direction of Langley, the Pentagon, or any intelligence agency,RAND concludes that it largely tilts toward the White House and its army of political appointees.

The RAND report provides an accurate picture of how much the intelligence-policy relationship sometimes departs depressingly far from the ideal of intelligence providing unbiased analysis to policymakers who use it to inform their decision-making, Paul Pillar, a former national intelligence officer who is now a fellow at Georgetown Universitys Center for Security Study as well as the Quincy Institute, told The Intercept.

The report shows the variety of ways in which policymakers who are determined to use intelligence not to inform decisions but instead to sell their already established policies can pollute the process, ranging from blatant arm-twisting to subtle effects on the minds of intelligence officers who do not want to rock the boat, Pillar said.

See the original post:
Spy Agencies Skewed Intel to Please Trump, and Obama Too - The Intercept

David Axelrod said his old boss, former President Obama, does not want the 2024 presidential race to be a “tag-team match.”

“It isn’t that customary for former presidents to be out there, actively campaigning, and Obama has done that because these are extraordinary times,” Axelrod said Thursday in an appearance on CNN’s “Laura Coates Live.”

“But if you watch what he’s done, he tends to get engaged in the fall when voters are engaged, and he tends to pick his spots because I don’t think he wants to be — he doesn’t want it to be a tag-team match.”

President Biden held a multimillion-dollar fundraiser with Obama and former President Clinton on Thursday night in New York City. All three also joined the “SmartLess” podcast hosted by actors Jason Bateman, Sean Hayes and Will Arnett; the episode will be released at a later date, according to the White House.

“You and I are paying rapt attention to this race, now,” Axelrod told Coates. “Most Americans are not. And they’re gonna start paying attention after the conventions, in the fall. That’s when the final arguments are gonna be made that are gonna turn this race.”

It’s in that fall time frame, Axelrod said, that “you’ll see President Obama out there, just as he was in 2020, just as he was in 2022.”

Obama campaigned for his former vice president back in 2020, saying at a drive-in rally in Michigan at the time that then-President Trump hadn’t “shown any interest in doing the work or helping anybody but himself or his friends or treating the presidency as anything more than a reality show to give him the attention that he craves.”

“But unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with the consequences,” Obama continued.

Read more here:
Axelrod: Obama doesnt want Trump-Biden race to be tag-team match - The Hill

Neither Governor Newsom nor First Lady Michelle Obama will become the Democrats 2024 presidential candidate. No amount of President Bidens mental decline, forgetfulness, mumbling, or stumbling can change that. If Mr. Biden can fog up a mirror come Election Day, he will be the nominee. If he cannot, Vice President Harris awaits, on deck, bat in hand.

As for both Mr. Newsom and Mrs. Obama, they would first have to push Ms. Harris aside. For her part, she recently said, I am ready to serve. Theres no question about that. That does not sound like someone about to walk the plank. She wants to be president, ran for the job in 2020, and probably expected Mr. Biden, at some point after defeating President Trump, to hand her the baton before November 2024.

With her name on the ballot, Ms. Harris has never lost an election, winning her races for San Francisco district attorney, California attorney general, United States Senate, and vice president. She does not believe shes disqualified because of her so-called cackle. Nor does she consider herself having failed to determine the root cause of the three-year massive influx of illegal immigration when all but the hosts on MSNBC know the root cause is Mr. Bidens reversal of Mr. Trumps border policies.

In her identity party, she checks two boxes as a female who identifies as Black. Blacks are the most loyal part of the Democratic base, with Black women more loyal than the men. In a September 2023 article about its CBS News/YouGov poll, CBS News wrote, Black Democrats are the most enthusiastic about Harris today, as they were three years ago.

In 2020, Democrats panicked the after the unelectable, self-described Democrat socialist Senator Sanders won the Nevada caucuses, briefly becoming the partys frontrunner. So, Representative James Clyburn, right before the primary in his state, endorsed Mr. Biden and salvaged his meandering campaign. In exchange for Mr. Clyburns endorsement, Mr. Biden agreed, if elected, to make his first Supreme Court nominee a Black female.

When it seemed likely that Senator Feinstein would not complete her term, Mr. Newsom announced her replacement would be a Black female. When Feinstein died, Mr. Newsom delivered. Democrats, as a reward for Black loyalty, agreed to move the first 2024 primary to South Carolina, where nearly 30 percent of the voters are Black, giving this voting bloc a greater say in the nomination process.

Mr. Newsom has another problem. Most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, citing the economy, inflation, gas prices, crime, and illegal immigration. What has Mr. Newsom said or done that would make any of this better?

As I explain in my latest book, As Goes California: My Mission to Rescue the Golden State, Mr. Newsom unabashedly resides on the fringe Left of his party. He supported the soft-on-crime district attorneys at San Francisco and Los Angeles. He supports cashless bail. He endorsed Proposition 47, which not only converted theft of nearly $1,000 into a misdemeanor but also took away the ability of cops to force addicts using drugs on the street to either go to rehab or go to jail.

As to Mr. Bidens ill-advised inflation-inducing spending, Mr. Newsom wants to spend more. As to the Biden war on oil and gas and his anti-drilling policies, Mr. Newsom is an even more ferocious climate change warrior, having decreed an end to the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in California by 2035. Even Mr. Biden, who calls climate change an existential threat, has not gone that far.

Mr. Newsom expanded the number of illegal aliens in California eligible for taxpayer-provided health care and brags about Californias status as a sanctuary state. Shortly after Mr. Bidens broadly condemned abrupt pullout from Afghanistan, Mr. Newsom said, Im incredibly proud of President Biden.

This brings us to Mrs. Obama. For the reasons outlined above, Black voters particularly Black female voters would resent a ploy to cast Ms. Harris aside, but there is one caveat: The substitute would have to be a popular Black female. Only two fit the bill: Oprah Winfrey and Mrs. Obama. Ms. Winfrey does not want the gig and, despite the hopeful speculation, neither does Mrs. Obama. She hates politics.

So, Ms. Harris it is.

Read more:
Democrats Delude Themselves With Visions of Presidential Bids by Gavin Newsom or Michelle Obama - The New York Sun